<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (8) TMI 1737 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458639</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit disputes may require fresh adjudication where credit was taken on advisory notes or transfer-for-debit notes and the record does not clearly establish the basis for denial. On the towers issue, the entitlement to credit as capital goods depended on unresolved factual questions about the nature of services and the need for towers. The impugned order was set aside and both issues were remanded for de novo decision with opportunity of hearing and fresh evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:57:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=777362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1737 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458639</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit disputes may require fresh adjudication where credit was taken on advisory notes or transfer-for-debit notes and the record does not clearly establish the basis for denial. On the towers issue, the entitlement to credit as capital goods depended on unresolved factual questions about the nature of services and the need for towers. The impugned order was set aside and both issues were remanded for de novo decision with opportunity of hearing and fresh evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458639</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>